The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-07-30

refused to change the certificates because be
would nave to expose his handwriting. Inc GER
tfcates were made out in words. while the taiiies
can be changed without disclosing the hand
writing. He changed the tallies Now, II Per
kins alone was responsible for what was done,
why should he change back one set! 1t might
be argued that the turmoil and contest that
arose over Hsey's paper scared him, and that he
changed them back; but if he did, he got over his
scare and changed five other sets of papers aft
erward; so that argument is not good as against
Perkins. whatever its force as a ganst Matter.
Perkins made his changes, as he acknowledges.
with knife. Why should he change his mode
and resor: to acidl That is not conclusive. but
it has some force upon the proposition that Per-
kins did not change them all One set were
changed by acids But in my judgment the
conclusive argument against the proposition
that Perkins changed all the tally-sheets is
found in this That some of the certificates
which were written out in words were also
changed Perkins says he refused to change
certificates because it would disclose his hand
writing. and yet certain certificates have been
changed, for instance, in the Lorenz Schmidt
precinct The certificate is changed as well as
the tally sheet. The words twenty and some
other words are written with different
ink and in a different handwrit-
de did not do this. He said he did not do it be-
cause it would disclose his handwriting; and
there is pretense that the handwriting thus
found in these changed certificates is his If it
was his it could and would undoubtedly have
been shown. So you have other changes of GER
tifcates in handwriting that might have been
proven. PERKINS says 1t Is not MS, and SO TO my
mind, il is clearly established, and by the
papers themselves. without resortng to any
body's testimony, that there was some hand in
this business besides Perkips's There were,
therefore, at least two or moro persons concerned
in this scheme and two or more persons acting in
concert and TO the accomplishment of given
purpose understood and agreed upon between
themselves, conspirators. Now, then, the
question is. who are these personsg The gov
eminent charges that these defendants now on
trial were the persons implicated with Perkins
this subject has been adduced before you,
and you have heard the arguments of counsel
in respect to it. In respect some of these de-
PENDANTS, Perkins testifes directly to matters
which, if true. establish their criminal COM
plicitv with him; but Perkins is discredited
witness. He comes before you, confessin g that
he is criminal; that he is a party to these
crimes. He is, therefore, not entitled to full
credit. There is rule of law which says YOU
may not on the testimony of such person alone
find others guilty. An accomplish may testify
in such satisfactory manner as, withoutth aid
of corroborating and supporting proof from
other sources, to convince the mind OF the jury;
and if it does convince it satisfactorily and
beyond reasonable doubt. they have right to
act upon it; but at the Same time the practice of
courts is to advise the jury to scrutinize very
cautiously and carefully the testimony of
to convict on his testimony alone
unless it does produce that clear
and certain conviction OF the guilt
of those accused. But law is administered In
such cases and in all cases upon the testimony
of witnesses We often hear of circumstantal
testimony as distinguished from the testimony
of witnesses but all evidence ultimately must
rest upon the credit of witnesses. Crcumstan-
ces proved before jurors only by the testi-
mony of witnesses. Courts therefore must pro-
coed upon the faith of human testimony. Ju-
rors, however, must sft it and weigh it care
fully and determine what is true, what is rei-
able and what is doubtful Now then, who is
Perkins2 How does he appear before youf You
have seen him. You have heard him. You have
observed his manner. You have his intelli-
gence. You know what disposition he mani
tested on the stand. You know the story he
told. A great deal of time and effort has been
expended in heaping denunciation upon him.
Counsel had right to do that but mere hard
words not so much to be considered. whether
they come from counsel on side in respect
TO some witness or party, or counsel on the other
side in respect to another. Hard words not
so much to be considered hard arguments.
Indeed, have read of the advice given to
young man starting out as a lawyer and as
public speaker soft words and hard argu-
ments Counsel, in their zeal, often go beyond
this. They are not to be blamed for it, perhaps.
but jurors must not forget their duty to calmly
and carefully discriminate and weigh the testi-
mony, and give each matter its fair and just
weight. Now, what motive has Perkins in this
matter? OF course one motive is to escape pun
ishment substantially. himself. But does that
afford any motive for bringing accusation
against an innocent man? We have already es-
think satisfactorily. that there is
some guilty man. men, connected with him in
this transaction. The papers show that. What
motive has Perkins for making false accusa-
ton against any ody9 You should consider that
But two of the defendants say that he
called them for money, and
refusal by them to give him money
ne made threat to ''do them up or something
10 that effect. IL that was malicious threat,
without foundation other than their refusal to
give him money, it indicates very wicked
heart. and that SO far as the man himself alone
s concerned he would not be entitled to much
,redit. Mr.. Perkins denies the threat The
and certain witnesses have testified
with regard to it. Whether that threat
made or not, you. of course. will determine, if
rou deem 1t necessary: and In the second place
determine the motive with which the threat
vas made. Now. if as matter of fact, Messrs.
dattler and Span had been implicated with
Inn in this conspiracy and for that reason he
allied ON them for money and they refused to
i've it to him. and he threatened to do them
lp," 1t would be a very natural manifestation of
human nature-lf in fact, they had been i'm
dictated in this conspiracy.
A good deal of comment has been made upon
he agreement entered into between Mr.. Per-
ins and the prosecuting attorney for Marion
ounty. That has been read before you in evil
ence. Very severe comments have been made
pom that agreement, and all parties whose
ames appear in that connection have been de-
ouuced with great vehemance and bitterness. |
instruct you a matter of law in this connec- |
ion that it is legitimate, and has been prac- |
iced, SO far as know, uniformly in this country, |
nd for time lmmemorial, to make such agree |
lents. Governments and the authorities that |
epresent governments have found that it is |
u practicable often to bring criminals to justice |
7ithout the aid and testimony of of the |
uilty parties, aud it is recognized right |
nat the authorities have to obtain testimony |
this way. So there is imputa-
on justly to be attached to the |
rosecuting attorney, or to any Of the author-
es for entering into this agreement. The just |
nputation against Mr.. Perkins is that there
as necessity on his part to enter into the
greement; and that simply brings you Back to
he first ground that l stated to you that he has
loaded guilty to this offense. His entering in
that agreement. unless it was to do some
rong thing, to give false testimony. does not
nhance his guilt; and the agreement is no
asis of an impuration upon others connected
it'll it. On the contrary the presumption is,
the absence of proof, that the gentlemen
hose names thus appear honorable men.
nd they should not be subjected to criticism
scause of the exercise of their rights in such
ALTERS.
We come back to the question whether Per-
ms is corroborated. The weight that you are
give to his testimony does not rest much in
e force of the man, in the credit that he is to
given because he has destroyed the basis for
in him I'm has hef sto hich